Warp wrote:
> you don't infringe the patent if you implement it with some tiny detail
> being different from the patent description?

To answer this precisely, yes, that's correct. You look at each claim, each 
of which is a single sentence. Each sentence is broken up by semicolons. 
Each clause has to be done by your machine in order for it to be violating 
the claim.

So if I have a claim that says

Claim 1: A machine that manufactures eyebolts; said machine powered by 
compressed air; with a two-prong mechanism that curls steel; and a die that 
cuts threads.

then you don't violate if you don't make eyebolts, you're not powered by 
compressed air, you don't have two prongs on the mechanism or it doesn't 
curl steel, or if you don't have a die that cuts threads.

If your mechanism has three prongs, then you're not violating my patent.

That's why people griping about "sudo did that a decade ago" or "they're 
patenting peanut butter jelly sandwiches" make themselves sound foolish to 
anyone who actually knows how the system works. IANAL.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message